Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 16

Fri, 30 Jan 2015

• 1. origin of a minhag? (saul newman)
• 2. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (David and Esther Bannett)
• 3. Re: cutting tephillin retzuos (Zev Sero)
• 4. breaking protocol (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Mo-deh Ani and Mo-duh-ani (Brian Wiener)
• 6. early davening (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Learning Tanach At Night (Eli Turkel)
• 8. eating fish & borer (Sholom Simon)
• 9. Re: eating fish & borer (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: eating fish & borer (Zev Sero)
• 11. Keli Sheni, no matter how hot (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 12. The Curious Case of the Karpef (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Keli Sheni, no matter how hot (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: The Curious Case of the Karpef (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: eating fish & borer (Micha Berger)

http://rygb.blogspot.com/2015/01/finally-soure-for-blei-gissen.html
what difference does it make....minhag chamur medin anyways....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150126/151daceb/attachment-0001.htm>

I've watched the subject being hashed and rehashed. There seem to be two 
main points. 1. Nehoshet includes copper, brass and bronze, 2.  If they 
didn't have iron, then barzel must a general term for metal.

In Tanakh, barzel and nehoshet are often mentioned as a pair.  I suggest 
that barzel means bronze.

Why bronze and not brass. Because bronze is harder, axes were made of 
it.  v'nashal habarzel mean ha'etz at a time they had no iron, suggests 
bronze.

The methods they had to make pure copper, brass, and bronze were not of 
the best so the removal of lead from the copper might have left the 
resultant somewhere between copper and brass.

To me barzel = bronze is a simple solution to the problem being examined 
so deeply on list.


Side point on adding to my annoyances: I have been annoyed lately by 
repeated references to netz hachama. Netz is a bird, probably a hawk. 
The word is hanetz with a kamatz in the hei.  This annoys me as much as 
those who wish us a shavuah tov.  The word Shavua' ends with an 
'ayyin,not with a hei.

All best,

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150127/78f11c1b/attachment-0001.htm>

On 01/27/2015 07:06 AM, David and Esther Bannett via Avodah wrote:
>
> In Tanakh, barzel and nehoshet are often mentioned as a pair.  I
> suggest that barzel means bronze.
>
> Why bronze and not brass. Because bronze is harder, axes were made of
> it.  v'nashal habarzel mean ha'etz at a time they had no iron,
> suggests bronze.
>
> To me barzel = bronze is a simple solution to the problem being
> examined so deeply on list.

I had thought of that, and would have suggested it, except that we
have the same Rambam to contend with.   I don't think it's contestable
that by the Rambam's time barzel meant iron.  Indeed, I don't think
it's contestable that by the mishna's time it meant iron.  And yet
he paskens lehalacha that the stones of the mizbeach must not be
touched by barzel, rather than by whatever he would have called bronze.
So for this explanation to work we would have to say that Chazal and
the Rambam were unaware of this change in the word's meaning, and
were mistaken about the halacha.  That's not the end of the world,
since by the time this halacha has practical relevance we will have
people from that time who can correct the mistake (and perhaps even
nevuah can be accepted for a translation rather than for a psak din,
even if it affects a psak din), but it's still a major dochek.

Generally the Mishna presents case law.  Occasionally it makes diyukim 
from psukim, and once in a while it explains the reasoning behind case 
law (shekein derech bnei m'lachim ...).  These occasions are very 
useful, because they break the facade and give us some idea of how the 
Tannaim thought.

What about midrash? Different midrashim have different styles. Virtually 
all of them use allegory and diyukim in psukim.  Some, like midrash 
Tanhuma, darshen halachos.  Do midrashim break protocol? What are 
examples of how they do it? What can we learn from these examples?

David Riceman

It may appear to be nitpicking...but R Micha -certainly he is not alone
in this- transliterates ???? as "nakhri/nakhriah". These words have kamatz
katan...so of course the correct pronunciation is "nokhri/nokhriah"

Brian Wiener

According to ROY workers who have to daven early should in a minyan

1) say bearuch she-amar after alot haschar  (90 minutes before netz)
2) after yistabach (at least 6 minutes later) put on tallit and tefillin
3) say all of shema with their berachot
4) chazan says a "heche kedusha" with the congregation saying along with
the chazzan
after kedusha they continue silently with the rest of shemone esre
5) if there is a bit more time say tachanun (nefilat apaim)
on monday& thursday leining rather than tachanun
6) ashre, ba-le-tzion, kaddish
7) remove tefillin while saying shir shel yom and alenu

see (Hebrew)


http://halachayomit
.co.il/displayResult.asp?txtSearch=%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA%20%D7%A4%
D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150128/1a66f8da/attachment-0001.htm>

<<One could write a very long book on Practical Kabbala. Some are into
this field, others aren't. On Shabbat when I went to do netilat yadayim
for a cohen, he reminded to stand on his right. It was important to him
so I did it.>>

I once went to a brit of a relative in Toldot Aharon. Afterwards the rebbe
gave "shiraim"
\Because of where I was standing I put out my left hand to receive the
bread. The Shamash made sure to tell me (in Hebrew at least) that I should
use my right hand even though it was awkward.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150128/2ffba448/attachment-0001.htm>

I am reading, for the first time "Dr. Haym Soloveitchik's 'Rupture and
Reconstruction.' Dr. Solovetchik's justifiably famous essay" (h/t R.
Yitzchak Blau, who mentioned it in the weekly "From the Archives of
Tradition" column of R Gil Student's Torah Musings.)

I'm reading it slowly. Right up front, he makes a claim that struck me
as odd. In giving an example of what he calls mimetic norms, he gives
the example of eating fish on shabbos. He asserts that in separating
the bones from the meat, it's pashut borer. (Exclude gefilte fish here,
obviously) he says: "The upshot is that all Jews who ate fish on Sabbath
(and Jews have been eating fish on Sabbath for, at least, some two
thousand years) have violated the Sabbath. This seems absurd, but the
truth of the matter is that it is very difficult to provide a cogent
justification for separating bones from fish. In the late nineteenth
century, a scholar took up this problem and gave some very unpersuasive
answers It is difficult to imagine he was unaware of their inadequacies."

First off, "a scholar" (as we find by looking in the footnote) was
the Mishna Brurah. (He also adds, in that footnote, "For critique, see
A. Y. Karelitz, Hazon Ish, Orah Hayyim (Bnei Brak: n.p., 1973), 53:4")
(I found calling the Mishna Berura "a scholar" odd, too, but that's not
the point of my post).

Now, I'm no expert, and so this might be a naive question (and I'm writing
this without looking in the M"B) but when I learned borer, and we came
to this question, I learned two rationales for the fish situation: (a)
taking good from bad is not borer; and (b) leaving some fish on the bone
also makes it not borer.

So, what's odd to me is R Ch S's assertion that the Gra and Rashi and
going back to the gaonim were unaware of this issue (and, therefore,
mechallel shabbos) and his assertion that the M"B's answer (which I'm
guessing is also my answer) is "very unpersuasive"

Presumably, the Chazon Ish disagrees (and I haven't looked inside there,
either).

Thoughts, anyone? 

Thanks
& kol tuv, 
- Sholom 

(PS: more questions, surely, to come) 

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:15:54AM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote:
: I am reading, for the first time "Dr. Haym Soloveitchik's 'Rupture and
: Reconstruction.' ...

Available at http://www.lookstein.org/links/orthodoxy.htm

: I'm reading it slowly. Right up front, he makes a claim that struck me
: as odd. In giving an example of what he calls mimetic norms, he gives
: the example of eating fish on shabbos. He asserts that in separating
: the bones from the meat, it's pashut borer...

As I reasd it, Dr Gra"ch (a nickname used around YU, since by default
his name referrs to his greatgandfather; translation: haGa'on Rav Chaim
PhD) is saying that those who make a textual argument against picking
bones out of the fish would be implying that:
:                     "The upshot is that all Jews who ate fish on Sabbath
: (and Jews have been eating fish on Sabbath for, at least, some two
: thousand years) have violated the Sabbath.

It's not his "upshot", but that of the position he is critiquing.

Since this conclusion is absurd, we should be forced to conclude that we
can't get the actual halakhah by looking only at the formalisms without
context. As that paragraph ends, "Custom was a correlative datum of the
halakhic system. And, on frequent occasions, the written word was reread
in light of traditional behavior."

Jumping back to the bit you quoted.
:                                               In the late nineteenth
: century, a scholar took up this problem and gave some very unpersuasive
: answers It is difficult to imagine he was unaware of their inadequacies."

: First off, "a scholar" (as we find by looking in the footnote) was
: the Mishna Brurah. (He also adds, in that footnote, "For critique, see
: A. Y. Karelitz, Hazon Ish, Orah Hayyim (Bnei Brak: n.p., 1973), 53:4")
: (I found calling the Mishna Berura "a scholar" odd, too, but that's not
: the point of my post).

Scholar = master of texts. He is using the word scholar here pointedly.

: Now, I'm no expert, and so this might be a naive question (and I'm writing
: this without looking in the M"B) but when I learned borer, and we came
: to this question, I learned two rationales for the fish situation: (a)
: taking good from bad is not borer; and (b) leaving some fish on the bone
: also makes it not borer.

People at least as often as often take the bones out of the fish, or
spit the bones out. But then it's generally for immediate consumption
or perhaps even as part of consumption.

My own opinion of R&R is that I feel Dr Grach places too much emphasis
on the wrong rupture. Much of what he is writing about started with the
reconstruction after the ghetto walls fell. That's when we invented
Chassidus, Yeshivish, Neo-Orthodoxy, Mussar, etc... And, the rupture
of WWI was more significant than it seems not wht it's historically
overshadowed by the Shoah. That is what accelerated the departure of
youth to Communism, and Secular Zionism.

In short, I find it hugely ironic to find someone named R' Chaim
Soloveitchik saying that the textual approach to halakhah and a consequent
accumulation of new chumeros didn't start until the Mishnah Berurah's
heyday.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On 01/29/2015 02:33 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Available at http://www.lookstein.org/links/orthodoxy.htm
...
>: I'm reading it slowly. Right up front, he makes a claim that struck me
>: as odd. In giving an example of what he calls mimetic norms, he gives
>: the example of eating fish on shabbos. He asserts that in separating
>: the bones from the meat, it's pashut borer...

> As I reasd it, Dr Gra"ch ...
...
> It's not his "upshot", but that of the position he is critiquing.
> Since this conclusion is absurd, we should be forced to conclude that we
> can't get the actual halakhah by looking only at the formalisms without
> context. As that paragraph ends, "Custom was a correlative datum of the
> halakhic system. And, on frequent occasions, the written word was reread
> in light of traditional behavior."

But it's all based on his patently false premise that all separation,
whether meat from bones or bones from meat, is borer, and thus all the
Jews who ate fish must have done so. Without this premise his entire
argument falls to pieces. Those who knew the halacha have all along been
careful not to take the bones from the meat, and it is not at all absurd
to say that those who were not careful were indeed breaking Shabbos.

Well spotted, R Sholom.

> Jumping back to the bit you quoted.
>:                                               In the late nineteenth
>: century, a scholar took up this problem and gave some very unpersuasive
>: answers It is difficult to imagine he was unaware of their inadequacies."

>: First off, "a scholar" (as we find by looking in the footnote) was
>: the Mishna Brurah. (He also adds, in that footnote, "For critique, see
>: A. Y. Karelitz, Hazon Ish, Orah Hayyim (Bnei Brak: n.p., 1973), 53:4")

That's a typo.  It's actually 54:3-4.

>: Now, I'm no expert, and so this might be a naive question (and I'm writing
>: this without looking in the M"B) but when I learned borer, and we came
>: to this question, I learned two rationales for the fish situation: (a)
>: taking good from bad is not borer; and (b) leaving some fish on the bone
>: also makes it not borer.

He's talking about the Biur Halocho, where he tries to give a limud zechus
for those who take the bones from the fish, and even for those who do so
before the meal. The Chazon Ish disagrees with this, and distinguishes
fish from the cases the MB cites in possible support of a heter.

> People at least as often as often take the bones out of the fish

But they're wrong to do so. And there is no basis for supposing that
"all Jews who ate fish on Sabbath" did so, or that "the Gra and Rashi and
going back to the gaonim were unaware of this issue". On the contrary,
they were aware of the issue and forbade it.

> or spit the bones out.

That is not borer at all. That is simply eating. Even the Chazon Ish
says that to hold a bone and eat the meat off it and then throw it away is
"ein bo nidnud klal".

> But then it's generally for immediate consumption

That's not usually a heter for pesoles mitoch ochel. It's a heter for
ochel mitoch pesoles, which is otherwise also forbidden.

ShA YD 68 discusses the practice of scalding beasts and birds immediately
following Shechita i.e. prior to salting to remove blood, and prior to
removing Cheilev, and from the Mordechai we see prior to checking for
Tereifos.

Even though we prefer to avoid this, it is permitted in a Keli Sheni where
necessary, for example where the meat is frozen and we require it defrosted
for Shabbos or guests.

Even though we prefer to do this with water which is below YadSB, it is
kosher as long as it is a Keli Sheni, no matter how hot the water is.

Tosafos in az describe heating a small pot of water inside a large pot of
water which is boiling on the fire. The smaller pot is withdrawn when the
water in it is seen to be boiling.

The small pot is deemed to be a Keli Sheni and cannot be used for
Kashering. The reason is that a Keli Rishon is not the pot that was on the
fire but the pot whose contents continue to be heated via the walls of the
pot, even after it is removed from the fire. (Keep in mind there are
opinions, that once off the fire it is no longer a Keli Rishon )

So the pot is just like the Even Meluben, the hot brick we use when
Koshering with HagAla. Water boils at 100C, it does not get hotter unless
it is pressurized. But the fire is much hotter and the brick is much hotter
and the pot is much hotter, that's why the pot continues to boil even after
removed from the fire.

The Halacha of Bishul and Beliyos, is not determined by whether the food
gets cooked but by whether this is the usual way to cook. It may be usual
to cook Kaley Bishul in a Keli Sheni, but that does not set the standard
for normal Bishul.

Coffee and tea are not cooked, just as Reb Moshe says bones are not cooked.
Bones are softened in order to make it enjoyable to eat the marrow inside
them and even if the bone is chewed and swallowed that's no different to
swallowing watermelon seeds.

So too coffee and tea. They are steeped in hot water to extract flavor;
that is not cooking.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150130/1e2b8f35/attachment-0001.htm>

The title of this article will probably engender much curiosity. What 
exactly is a karpef? No, it is not a type of French pastry, nor is it 
referring to the vegetable dipped into saltwater at the Pesach Seder. 
Rather, it is a term used to refer to an area not designated for 
human habitation, and whether we know about it or not, it actually 
affects us all...

To find out more, read the full article 
"<https://go.madmimi.com/redirects/1422608503
-1b2940fa5daac5bead6bd72e54c5781f-7b92767?pa=27967298654>Insights 
Into Halacha: The Curious Case of the Karpef".


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150130/4a8b1cd9/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:57:16AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
[Examples ellided.] ...
: The Halacha of Bishul and Beliyos, is not determined by whether the food
: gets cooked but by whether this is the usual way to cook. It may be usual
: to cook Kaley Bishul in a Keli Sheni, but that does not set the standard
: for normal Bishul.

I would think that this is even more compellingly true for Shabbos,
which requires melekhes makhsheves.

: Coffee and tea are not cooked, just as Reb Moshe says bones are not cooked.
: Bones are softened in order to make it enjoyable to eat the marrow inside
: them and even if the bone is chewed and swallowed that's no different to
: swallowing watermelon seeds.

: So too coffee and tea. They are steeped in hot water to extract flavor;
: that is not cooking.

That's what the tea importers I frequent tell me.

Most posqim do not accept that version of the metzi'us. Leading me to
have questioned what you here take for granted. So I was looking for a
source for my hava aminu, which you now state as a given. How do we know
that steeping in hot water to extract flavor in seconds rather than the
usual hours is indeed not bishul? Does someone explicitly make this
assertion, or is it your own sevara? Perhaps the definition of bishul
is broader than that of cooking in this regard.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 05:30:45AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: To find out more, read the full article [<http://ohr.ed
: u/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5070]>" Insights Into Halacha:
: The Curious Case of the Karpef".

RARR is spending a couple of years on shu"t discussing eiruvin, and karpaf
/ karpeif / karpif was one of the recent topics.

If the topic interests you, you might want to listen to
#11: "North Circular Road" 12-14-2014
     <http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/822762>
#12: "Hampstead Heath" 12-28-2014
     <http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/826604>
#13: "Judea and Samaria Enter the Responsa Literature" 01-04-2015
     <http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/826937>

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 02:33:13PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: In short, I find it hugely ironic to find someone named R' Chaim
: Soloveitchik saying that the textual approach to halakhah and a consequent
: accumulation of new chumeros didn't start until the Mishnah Berurah's
: heyday.

And example of why I find it ironic was in Torah Musings today at
<http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/01/shema-blessings>

    Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik
    by R. Aharon Ziegler
    ...
    According to Rav Soloveitchik, unless one recites the Berachot of
    Shema, one has not completely fulfilled the Mitzvah of reciting
    Keri'at Shema. For this reason, R' Chaim Soloveitchik held that it
    is preferable to daven without a minyan and to recite the Berachot of
    the Shema along with the Keri'at Shema itself, rather than to daven
    with a minyan that davens before or after the proper time which
    Keriat Shema should be recited. Furthermore, even if one recites
    the Shema in its proper time but without the Berachot, the Kiyum
    [fulfillment] of Keri'at Shema is deficient, even though b'di'eved
    one has fulfilled the mitzvah of Keri'at Shema.

One of the many examples of RCBrisker practicing what fits the lomdus
even though it's against established common practice.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)